I have been on both Employer and Contractor ‘sides’ in this debate:
Does Clause 31.2 bullet point 8 actually require the Contractor to ‘resource load’ the programme?
When working for an Employer, I always recommend that the Works Information makes it clear what is required, and I do not rely on this clause as I believe ‘for each operation, a statement of…’ means what it says, i.e that you can give a written statement of the principal labour and equipment.
In itself it does not require ‘resource loading’ a programme.
The subject of debate wherever I go, and whatever ‘side’ I work on, another view would be welcomed.
1 Like
In terms of do you have to resource load a programme, the strict contractual answer I guess is NO, although my practical answer is in reality YES.
31.2 requires that every programme issued for acceptance includes a statement of how the Contractor plans to do the work identifying resources that he plans to use. This is actually quite cumbersome to do with words. With the sophisticated planning software that we have now it is very easy to resource load programme activities with different trades giving overall labour profiles for the project.
I would argue that how can you be sure that a programme is achievable unless it is resource loaded? As a Contractor I would like to think it would be business as usual to want to resource load their own programme if they are using the programme as an effective management tool.
You are correct that it would be better for the Employer to make it a clear requirement to do so within the Works Information to encourage the Contractor to do what he should be doing for his own benefit anyway!
So, yes it is a clear contractual requirement to give indications of resources as a minimum by words, but in a practical sense it is so much easier and more practical to do it by physically loading resources onto the programme activities.
Thanks Glenn, as I suspected.
Yes, when working for a Contractor I would always recommend resource loading of key trades - why wouldn’t you (although I have had those who tell me not to do it)? However, equally some Employers, without supporting WI, need to remember I think, that the core clause uses that word ‘principal’, and shouldn’t expect to use this to monitor anything other than ‘principal’ resources and equipment.
Clear WI at the outset is the key.